Re: bettering open source involvement

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 02/08/2016 10:40, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 8/1/16 1:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 02/08/2016 02:36, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2016-08-01, at 15:44, Livingood, Jason <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> What if, in some future state, a given working group had a code repository and the working group was chartered not just with developing the standards but maintaining implementations of the code?
>>>
>>> as an addition to developing specs, that might be useful, if the spec remains the canonical standards output.
>>>
>>> "Go read the code" is not a useful answer if the code comes under a license (such as GPL) that taints the developer. 
>>
>> This is a *very* important point. If an IETF WG sponsors code development, it needs to
>> be under an IETF-friendly licence. One way is to post it as an I-D. Another way is the
>> BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" License. GPL is not a useful option.
> 
> "IETF WG sponsors code development"
> 
> I'm not sure what this means, are you paying for a developer?

No, "sponsor" does not automatically mean payment. One of the
Merriam-Webster meanings is "assumes responsibility for some other
person or thing."

> I certainly have opinions as to what terms I'm willing to accept on IPR,
> patented or otherwise.

Of course. But if you're in IETF-land, you've already accepted IETF rules.

> if it's a question of the inclusion of code in a working-group doc then
> that's a question of consensus...

Correct. But if I include code in any old I-D, I'm automatically placing
it under the IETF Trust licence, which is simplified BSD. That's nothing
to do with consensus.

   Brian

> 
> joel
> 
>>    Brian
>>
>>> (This is a major reason what we are doing IETF specs for DCTCP and CUBIC - so that they can be implemented without needing to
>> read Linux kernel code.)
>>>
>>> Lars
>>>
>>
> 
>